Talk:Theresa Spence

POV dispute - Idle No More and hunger strike

The section Theresa Spence#Idle No More and hunger strike has been tagged as a NPOV issue with the concern "Written without any opposing criticism. Missing the offers made by government to meet. Uses poor sources." Anyone have thoughts on this? Zujua (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The content is sourced and NPOV. Of course the "subject" of the article has a POV, but the text is written to WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:V standards. I am unaware of any criticism except by the IP vandals attacking this article. If there is any legitimate, published criticism that can be sourced to WP standards, it should be put in a new, "criticism" section. The other reason that section does not exist is this stub was only created very recently. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, as the IP SPA simply did a tag and run, and did not bother to even voice what the specific concerns are, I think it would be valid to remove the flag unless and until someone with the courage to voice their concerns engages here on the talk page. :) - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not a neutral article. There is not balanced credence to both points of view. The editors clearly know this but protect this <blp violation removed>, no mention of the audit, no mention of mismanagement of funds or that her common law partner is the accountant. Continue to obfuscate and stonewall, and continue to present one side of the story, all you do is bring Wikipedia into disrepute. 24.224.214.165 (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Theresa Spence is clearly notable. There are articles on indigenous leaders who have garnered far less interest. Everything is sourced and neutral. Indigenous girl (talk) 04:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, not a wikipedia editor, but I have added some context and sources in an attempt to provide some balance and facts to the article, which should be deleted and is extremely one-sided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.170.148.125 (talk) 05:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstand WP:NPOV. It does not mean we provide equal balance to all viewpoints on a topic. It certainly doesn't justify misrepresentation of sources, removal of relevant material without an explanation, nor adding off topic material. --Ronz (talk) 05:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstand your role and responsibilites as a wiki editor. Threatening to block users, harassment and POV-pushing are not generally accepted, to my knowledge. It would be good to have some previously unengaged editors come and review the present situation. Perhaps in the interim you could recuse yourself from making further edits to this article, Ronz, if that is not too much to ask. Thanks! 24.224.214.165 (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

It is every wikieditors responsibility to ensure that biographies of living persons articles follow the BLP policy. No one has the right to request that another editor refrain from editing or participating unless they ca demonstrate that misconduct has occured in which case the community will decide on a suitable sanction. There is clearly POV pushing going on from several sides - but Ronz is right in so far as we should always err on the side of caution in editing BLP articles. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, this is the person from 108... again. Happily, it seems that there is now more balance to this article, partly perhaps as a result of the media taking a closer look at the situation and the publication of a financial audit of Attawapiskat. I received some veiled threats about being blocked and found sourced edits repeatedly deleted ("vandalized" is the correct term, perhaps), and some wikipedia editors seemed to believe in some conspiracy between myself and another critical voice (perhaps that we were the same person). Anyway, good to see the wikipedia process resulting in a better article over time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.170.148.125 (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Where is the section on throwing the journalists out of Attawpiksat?

A jounralist and her crew were thrown out of the reserve on Spence's explicit order: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/global-tv-crew-kicked-out-of-attawapiskat/article7064254/ Is it possible for one of the editors who support Spence so completely to please, possibly, attempt to work this into the article - it seems rather relevant and was, after all, her decision. Thanks. 24.224.214.165 (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

This person is not notable

Ms. Spence is not notable enough for her own page. The article also appears to be more about a protest called idle no more. Either way I'm adding the AFD tag an nominating for deletion. This info can be included on other articles on wiki 108.172.114.141 (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

A cabinet minister, Canada's Minister of Health spoke out on the hunger strike, received Globe and Mail front page coverage [1]; National Post is giving it front page coverage too [2]. Since it's become a prominent federal political issue and national news topic, the hunger strike makes the subject notable. Why is the link on the article page, to the AfD discussion, red?OttawaAC (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The link to the proposed AfD is red because it is a drive-by tagging by an IP SPA whose only edits are to rewrite sourced content, which is veering into vandalism. As the AfD was never started, and there is no page for it, I am removing the flag. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for assuming good faith Kathryn. I'm sensing some ownership issues with the article but I'll instead give you the benifit of the doubt that maybe you legitimately thought this was a vandals account. Its actually not an account, hence the IP address. I added the afd because per wiki guidlines she is notable only for a single issue. Further to that this info isn't so much about a BLP (Spence) is it is about the Idle No More protest and the Attiwapiskat housing crisis. The reason the afd discussion is blank is because after adding the tag wiki wouldnt allow an ip editor to create the page. I had been hopefull that in the spirit of wikipedia another named editor would instead create the discussin page which I would ask eother of you to do now instead of avoiding the legitimate discussion on the topic. Thanks in advance 108.172.114.141 (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Mr or Ms 108, AGF does not mean ignore the behaviour of someone who is disrupting the 'pedia. You have now been warned by three different editors about inserting attacks into BLPs and substituting defamatory content in contradiction of the sources. You are not demonstrating good faith with your edits, so it would be naive of editors here to assume that on your part. I don't wish you any ill will; just letting you know that a pattern is visible in your edits. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

review my edits, I dont add defammatory content I remove unreliable sources (the issue months ago was with gossip sites/mags being used on what are really just fn page BlP's). Please see note on my talk page clarifying the ip range you accuse me of sock puppeting from. This article is a BLP and as such sources are held to a higher standard especially when dealing with controvertial issues. Besides all that this really should be a afd discussion as she is notable only for one issue (the housing crisis) but is now pushing that under a broader banner (Idle No More and opposition to bill c-35). The page as it exists contains little if any biographical information outside this recentism discussion and as such I believe it should be deleted and the nfo incorporated in to other pages (such as the Hunger Strike page, the Atttiwapiskat page, the Idle No More page, etc.) 108.172.114.141 (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Mysterious 108, please don't fib. You added phrases of oppression to the article. That's not nice. I hope you were not trying to be racist. Indigenous girl (talk) 03:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

you both need to read IP Adress . I am not /108.170.148.125. There are millions of users within this range. I have made No additions to either this or the hunger strike page other than the afd on this page 108.172.114.141 (talk) 03:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I would say you are hoping we don't know about dynamic IPs or similar sock maneuvers. As I said on your talk page, if you don't want to be penalized for other edits from this IP, create an account. You just admitted diff that you have an account and are editing logged out. Why? Your edits from the IPs count as edits from your account. If you are editing logged out to avoid accountablity, this is a form of sockpuppetting. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

So, "108", as you know I prefer to keep conversations in one place. (I apologize to Wikipedians for having a discussion about sockpuppet policies here, but as the user has responded on multiple different talk pages...) I left you a message at IP 108.170.148.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and you responded to me about your actions from that IP... while posting from IP 108.172.114.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) diff. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I am the person without an account from 108... The content in the article is highly politicized and factually incorrect. She is not on a "hunger diet"; she is on a non-solid-food, soup diet, as several sourced articles describe. Ms. Spence is only notable for this one incident, and thus does it is inappropriate to write this article to support her political efforts, as per wikipedia guidelines. No opposing political viewpoints are presented in the article. No criticism of Ms. Spence or the fact that with the passing of the bill she would be forced to reveal more of the accounting for the $1.2 million/year her band council receives for administering a small reserve. The article should not be on wikipedia, and as it is, it is one-sided and factually incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.170.148.125 (talk) 04:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello again, reading this page, it seems that I am not the only person with concerns about this article's bias. Could another, disinterested mod please take a look at the issues here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.170.148.125 (talk) 04:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

108.170.148.125 Perhaps you could source a "criticism" "section". What you added was unsourced, defamatory content and racially provocative language. You may also want to do some research. Chiefs of Nations just are as notable as leaders of other nations. I'd also suggest that individuals posting from similar or identical IPs create or log in to existing accounts to avoid further confusion.Indigenous girl (talk) 05:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure what you consider "defamatory content" or "racially provocative language." Please be more specific, and do not simply delete factual additions and sources that do not conform to your political world view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.170.148.125 (talk) 05:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. That's not the way things work here when it comes to biographical information on living people. Misrepresenting a hunger strike as something else is inappropriate. You sourced it with an article that repeatedly characterizes her strike as a "hunger strike." --Ronz (talk) 05:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Right, and is this the reason you deleted the sourced criticism of Spence: she accepted $90-million in aid from the federal government, yet years later the reserve is in the same desperate situation; she hired her common-law husband to co-manage the band; and importantly, she is protesting legislation that would force her as chief to reveal details on how much she is paid, her partner is paid, and what happened to the $90-million? The article as it stands is obviously extremely biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.170.148.125 (talk) 05:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm unaware of the status of editorials by Christie Blatchford in the National Post have when it comes to WP:BLP. WP:RSN is the venue for getting help on such matters. Given how the source itself conflates information, and how the proposed content presents information out of context and in a manner that implies problems where there may be none, I felt it best to keep it out along with the outright misrepresentations of sources per WP:BLP. --Ronz (talk) 06:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Jumping in here and hoping I am doing it in the correct format. I came to the Theresa Spence page because I wanted to remind myself of some facts about her. I was able to find a little of what I wanted so I do think there is merit in the page itself. She is a person who has been in the news for more than a year. Just because it is not big time news for most of the world does not make her less worthy of an encyclopedia entry in a source many Canadians do go to. That being said I think the page itself needs some serious clean up. Some of my suggestions are:

• Section on the housing crisis should go first and needs more details. The current entry there is not what I would call objective or neutral.
• The quote "She has become a national symbol and has bravely highlighted the gross public policy extremes of the Harper government and has deservedly shamed them nationally and internationally." while sourced is simply the opinion of the source and not neutral fact. Possible change would be to say that some feel she is a national symbol of ... while others feel ...
• I think it is fair to call her actions a "hunger strike" as the wiki page on hunger strikes makes it clear that most do take liquids. But the exact nature of her hunger strike could be clarified in the article.
• the quote on bill c-45 " "Bill C-45 includes changes to the Canadian Indian Act regarding how Reserve lands are managed, making them easier to develop and be taken away from the First Nation people; the bill also removes thousands of lakes and streams from the list of federally protected bodies of water." is only a portion of what is in the bill. As this is not an article about Bill c-45 it does not seem appropriate to have a discussion of it on this page. What would be pertinent I think is what Theresa Spence feels about the bill and why it has prompted her to start the hunger strike. Jemmaca (talk) 11:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I think these are good suggestions. Aside from her status as chief being notable, she's gaining international recognition for her actions relating to her hunger strike and that's only going to continue, I don't see her notability being an issue here. It seems absurd that people here are trying to argue about whether or not she's on a hunger strike when the Wikipedia page on hunger strikes itself clearly states that many take liquids, in the opening paragraph of the article! What she's doing is also clearly recognised and being reported on as being a hunger strike, too.

I think putting the housing crisis section first makes sense, giving a chronological order to her actions to date, and fleshing it out would help give more balance over all. Also agreed on the quote regarding her bravery - it doesn't really add any new information to the article as a whole and doesn't really gel with the rest of the paragraph. A better quote would perhaps be from Chief Spence herself, stating her opinion of the Bill. Ririgidi (talk) 19:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion tag

Is this discussion closed? To me, it seems that she is a notable person, even outside of the recent Idle No More events, as a chief of a native nation, that makes her alone a notable person. Now that she is on the cover of many major newspapers, it is hard to argue that she is not notable. I can hear the criticisms about the term hunger strike, however, they hold little weight. A hunger strike does include eating liquids, but not solid food. I'm inclined to remove the deletion tag, unless further arguments can be clarified as to why it is a candidate for deletion. Ottawakismet (talk) 15:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I've just spent some time reading through the BLP guidelines. While I would personally like to see a good page on Theresa Spence this current page is lacking in biographical information and a neutral tone. Additionally the page lacks much information on the housing crisis and Theresa Spences's role in it. So my opinion is that it fails to meet the guidelines for a biography of a living person. There are pages on both "Idle no more" and "Attawapiskat First Nation" that contains all the information found on the current Theresa Spence page. So unless it can be cleaned up and fleshed out I regrettably think it ought to be deleted Jemmaca (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

She seems to meet WP:BIO multiple times over. I don't see any problems that can't be resolved with normal editing. Could someone point them out if they exist please? --Ronz (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I did argue that I thought she was notable enough. That being said here are my specific issues with the page existing (as opposed to editorial issues). Sorry it is lengthy.

With regards to the process of "normal editing" I quote from WP:BLP "The idea expressed in WP:Eventualism – that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced, because it will eventually be brought into shape – does not apply to biographies."

Reading WP:BLP1E it seems to me that all three of the conditions are met for avoiding having an article.

• the section on the housing crisis is not covered enough, or with enough verifiable sources to turn this into a second event
• Theresa Spence is likely to remain a low profile person over the course of time. And if that changes a page can be created in the fullness of time.
• The level of significance of the current event can not accurately be judged nor can we predict exactly how significant a role she will have played once things unfold in their entirety.

also in WP:BIO1E we have "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified." Not sure we are at that threshold. Despite having argued in favour of having this page in my prior note.

see also WP:RECENTISM I think that many of the issues described in the article are present in the current Theresa Spence article. As such the recentism tag included on the page is appropriate and the article really may be better placed on wikinews.

my editorial concerns I mostly listed before. But the fact the article lacks very basic biographical information and is almost entirely about current events is the part that pushes it into the category of merging into the pages on the events or to wikinews. Jemmaca (talk) 08:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Individual easily passes notability criteria. Current chief of a First nations community alone would do it. I mean, we have articles on obscure state legislators and even fringe candidates. This person clearly is a political figure of sufficient notability. Comments added about opponents view. So, as a previously uninvolved editor, I have to say that this is a dead issue. Montanabw^(talk) 20:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Repeated attempts to misrepresent her hunger strike

The first time around it was an outright misrepresentation of sources ([3] and subsequent edits from 108.172.114.141 (talk · contribs) and 108.170.148.125 (talk · contribs)).

Now it's undue weight if the other problems with the addition were addressed: The addition didn't actually contain proper sources for the material, it used scare quotes, it discusses the hunger strike as a "liquid diet," and goes off on a tangent describing broth with a questionable if not unreliable source.--Ronz (talk) 02:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

in an attempt to find a neutral middle ground I have made a small edit to the first sentence in the hunger strike section. I broke the sentence into two parts. Used the existing source and outlined the nature of the type of hunger strike it is. Then in the new second sentence referred to this as a hunger strike. I added none of the type of edits that were describing it as a diet/liquid diet as I agree with Ronz's statements above that these are misleading and questionably sourced. I think it is neutral to indicate which type of hunger strike it is but that it is disingenuous to call it anything other than a hunger strike. I dislike the paragraph as a whole but I hope this one little change can at least fix one point of contention and stop the repeated removal of the term hunger strike. Jemmaca (talk) 09:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Great work! I hope this is settled and we can move on to the larger problems with the article. --Ronz (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Until there is a validly citable journalistic article to clarify the vague term 'fish' broth, I suggest the term 'fish'-based protein diet be substituted. Depending on traditional foodstuffs, A protein regimen is not necessarily a 'hunger' strike until her supplies of body fat are running low, and even then, we don't know if this 'fish broth' includes fish-fat as well. On a low/no carbohydrate diet, the body switches over to protein —> glucose metabolism.

Frankly I think journalists have done a shoddy job on the question of just what she is/is not 'eating', probably so as not to step on ethnic sensitivities.

I'm grateful the editors have enough sense to avoid the term 'fast', which really should be nailed down to zero carb, fat, protein, solid or liquid.JohndanR (talk) 14:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

This is just another attempt to misrepresent the strike. No sources bring up such concerns, so we shouldn't either. Please don't waste our time here. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Alrighty: "...misrepresent the strike". With the absence of the debatable adjective between the article and the noun, we are converging on a solution. For my part I fully support legitimate protest, not excluding actual fasting. For the cost of a single F-35, some one hundred full K-12 Native language programs could completely roll back the destructive erosion of English on aboriginal languages, the true matrix of Native culture. But that's just my gratuitous talk-contribution, and you're welcome to delete both of them.JohndanR (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ronz! I see you have managed to completely bend this article to your POV. Congrats! Now, will you step down and stop editing so that actual facts can get in the article? Your viewpoint is showing. Importantly NOT A SINGLE MEDIA OUTLET calls it a hunger strike anymore - its being called what it is A LIQUID DIET. Thanks! 24.224.214.165 (talk) 17:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I see no sources provided, nor does the assessment meet even a cursory examination as these recent articles show [4] [5] [6] [7] --Ronz (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, when your bias has been so obvious, its hard to backtrack, no? Since you did not even bother to do a cursory examination of your 'sources' or recent media articles, I will for you. First, I might add that using 'www.firstperespective.ca' as a source is probably not the best choice, given that it is biased, non-mainstream source - it would be like posting something from Infowars.com. Next, some recent articles where you will note 'hunger strike' is not used, rather 'liquid diet' - this list is by no means exhaustive:

1) http://www.globalnews.ca/audit+finds+lack+of+financial+due+diligence+in+attawapiskat/6442783329/story.html

2) http://thechronicleherald.ca/canada/393342-attawapiskat-audit-reveals-shoddy-band-oversight

3) http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/01/07/chief-counters-release-of-audit-with-explicit-demands-from-feds-for-change/

of course, these were just the first few results from page 1 of a google News search; im sure checking RSS and actually trying you could find many more examples. Do you think perhaps you could start to work some of these themes - which you seem unwlling to acknowledge - into this article? For example, the common-law partner who is non-aboriginal receiving a large salary as accountant despite the audit showing no documentation, the inaccuracy of the 'hunger strike' tag or allegations that the liquid diet was all a sideshow to distract people from the upcoming release of the audit showing gross mismanagement? If not, please allow another, informed wikipedia user to do so, without resorting to threats and revert wars? Perhaps you could recuse yourself from editing this article until such time as you are able to see the situation with a more balanced POV? Thanks! 24.224.214.165 (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

So we agree that media outlets are calling it a hunger strike still. So then it would be a misrepresentation to say otherwise. --Ronz (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

if you'd bothered to read any of the mainstream publication sources I posted previously, you would see that in only one is the term hunger strike used, and only then in Spence's own words - the other two articles dont even use the term hunger strike, instead terming it a liquid diet here. I guess your next ploy is to be disingenuous? Its not a hunger strike, it fails to meet the criteria for a hunger strike, and the media is no longer calling it a hunger strike. You can call it a hunger strike all you want, and you can use references from First nations media, but ackowledge your bias, so that wikipedia does not propagate it. Obviously a neutral editor is needed to review. Thanks! 24.224.214.165 (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not clear what you're arguing. Have you completely dropped your claim that "not a single media outlet calls it a hunger strike anymore?" What is it that you're claiming now? --Ronz (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't consider First Nations activist organizations to be unbiased sources, as you do, and no respectable media outlet is still calling it a hunger strike. I just provided 3 sources published in the last 72 hours all of which call what Spence is doing a 'liquid diet'. Please, try to overcome your bias, if this is not possible, please refrain from pushing your POV into the article and threatening other users, as well as reverting sourced material. Thanks!24.224.214.165 (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

[8] [9] [10] --Ronz (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I did read the articles you (24.224.214.165) linked above and 2 & 3 are the same article by Canadian Press. In fact a search on google news provided me with dozens of reputable news agencies all using the same CP story so that certainly accounts for your finding so many. The first is a different story but on the same day carrying the same information. Ronz provided multiple sources using the term hunger strike still. I confess I am not sure why this is an issue. The article called it a hunger strike to indicate that it was a protest that included refusal to eat properly. And also further explanation that this did include some liquid. Many people go on liquid diets. Most are far in excess of 400 calories and do not involve political demands. So that term does not fit. As rightly pointed out above fast is also not appropriate. So what is it you are thinking is needed? I think the latest additions are not helpful. I am assuming that you also want an article of quality or you would not spend the time arguing over it. So perhaps a suggestion instead of an accusation would help bring discussion back on track? Jemmaca (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Two of the 'multiple sources' Ronz provided are APTN (Aboriginal Peoples Television Network) and FirstPerspectives.ca - these are not mainstream sources, they have a political bent. I provided examples of news articles where inherent bias is not present. It really isn't disputable - her political stunt does not meet the criteria for a hunger strike. I cannot help but be perplexed at Ronz's refusal to at least note that many do not consider what she is doing a hunger strike. I suppose more balance will be added to this article as time goes on. 24.224.214.165 (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know of any criteria for what is or isn't a hunger strike. She clearly refers to it as such herself so we have to use that word, if there is any discussion in sources where others express that they don't consider it to be a hunger strike then we can include that viewpoint also.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

A hunger strike does not include refusing liquids.

104.3.1 Definition of hunger strikes

"The Declaration on Hunger Strikers (Declaration of Malta) (1991. http://www.wma.net/e/policy/h31.htm) defines a hunger striker as a mentally sound person who has voluntarily initiated a hunger strike and docs not acccpt food and/or fluids over a considerable time. Oguz and Miles (2005) define a hunger strike as an action based on nourishment refusal, performed by an individual (possibly imprisoned) whose decision-making capacity is not impaired, with the aim of obtaining fulfilment of a specific demand. Most hunger strikes include the ingestion of some water and other liquids, salt, sugar, and vitamin BI for a certain time without asserting intent to fast to death (Oguz and Miles 2005)."[11]. See also [12] which says "In total fasting, usually only liquids are consumed, possibly with salt, minerals, or sugar.6,7 Refusal of both food and water is uncommon, because doing so would usually lead to death within a week and would not give the hunger strikers sufficient opportunity to negotiate their demands.". Can we please drop this now? Dougweller (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

" Can we please drop this now?" No - as all mainstream media sources are now accurately reporting Spence's strike as a liquid diet, I find it hard to reconcile this with Wiki's neutrality policy. It seems there is a desire to use highly charged terminology such as 'hunger strike' when 'liquid diet' would be more appropriate. At a minimum, a controversy section should be added to make note of this, and other discrepancies which, as yet, are not present in the article. Not removing this language indicates some 'pedians are pushing a paricular POV, that of Spence's supporters. If the only criteria is self-reporting, can anyone who says they are on a 'hunger strike' simply be referenced as being on a hunger strike by their own admission - or are contemporary defintions of liquid diet / hunger strike not valid? It seems to me this is a point of contention and one that should be mentioned at a minimum. You will note if you start to check recently published articles, outside of the first nations sources, the 'strike' is being described as a liquid diet. As to my other allegations of impropriety in the editing of this page, they will be addressed elsewhere in this Talk page; slowly it seems that more recent sources and controverises such as the release of the audit are being incorporated. This is imperative.24.224.214.165 (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

CBC - Today's article: "Spence's month-long hunger strike." One could easily argue that yourself and other anonymous users are pushing a POV narrative that the subject's actions are illegitimate or false. As Doug's link shows, "hunger strike" has a wide definition, and Spence's actions fall within it, not just by the judgement of editors here, but also by writers and editors in Canadian media outlets. So maybe, yes, please drop it. The Interior (Talk) 18:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Reliable sources (BBC, Reuters, WSJ, CBC, etc) identify it as a hunger strike - the fact that you have a personal dislike and/or bias against those sources is irrelevant, as they clearly meet the threshold of WP:RS. These sources then support the primary source in what she calls it. If other reliable sources specifically address it (ie: a story disputing the classification as a "hunger strike", then that would support having a sentence or two mentioning it - but a story that simply calls it something else isn't an adequate source for such a section. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Obviously some media outlets have referred to Spence's action as a "hunger strike", while still others don't recognise it as such. That in itself shows "hunger strike" is not the universally accepted term to describe what Spence has been doing since late last month; the use of the term itself is in dispute (as Evan Solomon himself mentioned on Power and Politics this evening; though, I don't raise that with the intent it be considered a source). Noone can therefore claim "hunger strike" is absolutely the singularly correct and only term that can be used in the article. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

You cannot say it is not a hunger strike as you appear to be trying to do. I've changed the section heading back and added the sources I used above. This is getting to be a BLP violation. Sure, we can say if you insist that some sources call it a liquid diet, but a hunger strike normally includes a liquid diet, without liquids you die within days. Not only that, hunger strikers get force fed liquids - which puts them on a liquid diet. Are they no longer hunger strikers? Dougweller (talk) 06:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

And you cannot say it is just because some sources agree with you. Others disagree with you, and you cannot simply dismiss them because they don't support your personal view. Your original research and opinionating are no justificaion, either. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not anyone's personal point of view, but a proper presentation of the information. Let's stop personalizing this and instead focus on content.

In order to get beyond the outright misrepresentations of sources, here are a couple that actually use the phrase "personal protest" [13] [14] [15]. Note that they are all very short articles. They should at least get us beyond WP:V problems.

If we tried to use those sources to support a rewrite along the lines of this edit, then we need address WP:NPOV and WP:OR.

So, do we have sources that clearly state it is not a hunger strike? If not, then it is original research to imply otherwise, let alone change the article to present the matter as if it is a neutral viewpoint.

What we do have is an overwhelming majority of sources that clearly indicate it is a hunger strike. Let's move on. --Ronz (talk) 18:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

quick note. The 3 sources you gave above with "personal protest" were written by the same person. Also there are sources using "hunger strike" and some version of "liquid diet" in the same article. That matches the versions here that call it a hunger strike and include clarification on style of hunger strike by including what she is ingesting. One more thing that could be added is the caloric intake of 200-400 calories which I did read in one source. That then gives all the info for readers to make up their own mind if it falls into their personal views on hunger strikes. I would remove the current edit saying that it does not meet the definition of a true hunger strike as the source given does not say that. but given the nature of this problem and my inexperience I thought best to see if others agree here first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jemmaca (talk • contribs) 21:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd first question it's reliability for what is and is not a "true" hunger strike. Unless there's a medical definition, I don't know how it could be.

Second, if it were found to be a reliable source, it's a minority opinion and should be treated as such.

If there is some medical definition, then it should be found, included as a reference, and presented as a medical definition. --Ronz (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is an article from a medical journal that gives the World Medical Association definition of a hunger strike --Hunger strike among detainees: guidance for good medical practice. In the introduction, they say that "The World Medical Association (WMA) defines hunger strike as voluntary total fasting (taking only water, possibly with salt, minerals or sugar added) lasting more than 72 hours by a mentally competent individual as a form of protest or demand." This is a reliable source from a medical journal, published in September 2012. --Skol fir (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm unable to find the actual WMA publication with this definition, and the article doesn't make it clear where they got the definition.

So no objections then to identifying the WMA definition within the article once we find the direct source? --Ronz (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure the quote I gave is reliable, as they couldn't just pull it out of a hat, especially in a published peer-reviewed journal. Anyway, if you want to wait until we have the original source from the WMA, that's fine with me. --Skol fir (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we can use the article then, because later it identifies three types of strikes, sourced again by WMA: "In case of partial fasting, the striker takes some form of liquid nourishment (e.g., sugar, honey) and only abstains from solid food [3]. Some forms of partial fasting are considered as “cheating” by the authorities, however however if prolonged, lead to death but at a much later stage than a total fast. "

It also contradicts the information in the next sentence in this article and the two sources used there: "According to the 1991 Declaration on Hunger Strikers (Declaration of Malta) hunger strikes and total fasts include the consummation of liquids and this is reflected in an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association on the treatment of hunger strikers." --Ronz (talk) 23:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

"Liquids" could be water only. That's not a contradiction. You cannot survive more than 7 days without water, so there is very little point to abstain from water and food. I think that's what they mean by consumption of liquids, with the simplest one being water. Anyway, I found another reference that mentions the WMA Declaration of Malta. Their definition of hunger strike is on pg. 36 at A background paper on the ethical management of hunger strikes. "It can be argued that total fasting (taking water only) for longer than 48 - 72 hours is the clearest definition on metabolic grounds for the term “hunger strike”." I'll keep looking. --Skol fir (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Other articles on hunger strikes/strikers, BLP issues

It bothers me that all the IPs, editors, etc who are busy trying to call this not a hunger strike are ignoring all the other articles which accept that a hunger strike can include liquids other than water. Hunger strike is being hit to remove Spence but not anyone else who subsisted on more than just water. That's in part what I think makes this a BLP issue. If we have a different definition in this article than it the others - that's a problem. Dougweller (talk) 10:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Take it up with the media then; its not generally being called a hunger strike, and unless wikipedia wants to make some policy about the accepted defintion for certain political protests, we are stuck figuring this out from available evidence. It strikes me that the editors who insist on using 'hunger strike' despite the fact that Spence is eating more than just water are pushing a POV, that of Spence's supporters. We can do better. 24.224.214.165 (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

"its not generally being called a hunger strike" This is a misrepresentation, not a simple mistake, and borders on being a BLP violation. [16] --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been researching the issue, looking for authoritative sources that might indicate different or official definitions. I've yet to find any. It might be helpful to take the question to WP:MED or even WP:MEDRS.

What we probably should do is expand Hunger strike with some definitions, including identifying types of fasts similarly to the SWM article discussed above does:

We define three modalities of hunger strike. Absolute fasting means no food and fluid intake. This option is rare: as the body cannot survive more than a few days without fluid, the period for negotiation is too short to be effective. Total fasting involves taking only water and abstention from all foodstuffs; salt (either sodium chloride alone or a combination of minerals) is often added to the water. In case of partial fasting, the striker takes some form of liquid nourishment (e.g., sugar, honey) and only abstains from solid food [3]. Some forms of partial fasting are considered as “cheating” by the authorities, however if prolonged, lead to death but at a much later stage than a total fast.

--Ronz (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

SYN for providing general references on hunger strike?

I reverted this removal of sourced information that was made with the edit summary, "textbook WP:SYN: neither of these sources on hunger strikes in general mention the one by Spence." I certainly don't see any WP:SYN problem, and given the discussions above (and discussions about the poor quality of the news articles), think it should be kept until we come up with a better solution to the concerns raised. --Ronz (talk) 00:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

References

Cleaning up this coatrack

This article is about Spence, not the Attawapiskat#Housing_and_infrastructure_crisis and not Idle No More. Yet the information about these two subjects dwarfs that about Spence.

I propose trimming both sections down to extremely brief summaries of the topics, and keep and expand, if possible, information about Spence and her involvement with them.

I also found and added a source that contains some personal information that we could add about her family.

Granted, even if we clean up the coatracking, the article is going to have other WP:NPOV/WP:NOTNEWSPAPER problems because of the sources available. Hopefully we can find some biographies on her, rather than just news reports. --Ronz (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I've tried looking for biographical info about her, and it's very hard to come by. The Globe Galloway article that is currently source 1 is about all that I've seen. As far as the coat racking goes, I think the current info on the reserve's housing crisis, and the hunger strike could be truncated (especially since there's already an article on the Attawapiskat housing and infrastructure crisis -- maybe move and merge some of the info there). But, those are national news stories, and that's what she's known for -- it's an odd case, a famous person in Canada, and it's tough to find anything info about her outside these aforementioned, highly publicized situations. OttawaAC (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Hopefully all the interest in her will be enough for some reporter to write a short biography... --Ronz (talk) 21:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Will leave the Hunger strike section alone for now...if there's anything to update, maybe I'll look at truncating it later.OttawaAC (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

If it doesn't have anything directly to do with Spence as pointed out in independent sources, it simply doesn't belong here. --Ronz (talk) 04:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Doted throughout this article, there are numerous references to people other than Spence.--Syncmaster941bw (talk) 05:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Let's clean up the coatracking that's going on. --Ronz (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more, so why did you only edit my text re other people while leaving other references in tact?--Syncmaster941bw (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC. If you see specific problems, solve them or bring them up here. --Ronz (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Attawapiskat population

I had a pop figure from the Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada Website. This was removed with the accusation of "coatracking" and failing to cite an independent source. I have now added a population figure based on the most recent census citing the National Post. Can anyone give me a sensible reason why this information should be excluded from the Spence bio? Is this information a evidence of some kind of insidious political bias, or is it simply information you would find useful in a BLP of a community leader? Thoughts? OttawaAC (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Totally agree, there is definately political bias at play with this article. I have been threatened with being blocked because I posted the FACT that Spence's common law husband, Clayton Kennedy, was paid $850 per day to co-manage the Attawapiskat Band Council.--Syncmaster941bw (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

It's simply not about Spence, and neither is far too much of this article. Provide an independent source that demonstrates is is important to Spence, otherwise it is coatracking. --Ronz (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Spence is currently, and for the foreseeable future, a major political figure in Canada. Spence by her own doing is no longer just a private citizen and is therefore open to heightened public scrutiny, especially when it comes to matters where the public funds are involved--Syncmaster941bw (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

So anything you personally feel is relevant is worth mention? --Ronz (talk) 02:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't threaten Syncmaster over the content of his edits, I gave him a 3RR warning - very very different. He disagrees that he made 3 reverts. He's raised the issue at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring at my suggestion. Dougweller (talk) 09:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

There has been a patern by a select group of editors to censor any critical info regarding spence or her cause by immediately reverting than harrasing those who attempted to balance the article with commentary from both sides. Accusations and threats have been on going by this group of editors and it needs to stop. If any info is well cited by reliable srouces it should be included. Period. And additionally, some of the fring sources being used by Spence's supporters needs further analysis to determine if they are in fact RS. 96.49.237.199 (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, no, not really. Writing a good article isn't about pasting together every last thing possibly related to a topic into one page. Policies like WP:UNDUE ask us to balance information. This article is a mess because of approaches like yours suggested above. It's meant to be a biography of a person, not a news/opinion aggregator. The Interior (Talk) 17:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree we want to make sure that only notable information is presented in a neutral and objective way.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree you did not threaten a block because of my content, but the end result is the same as content blocking--Syncmaster941bw (talk) 12:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

No it is not. If you can't follow the rules for editwarring and consensus building you get blocked. Someone else who can follow the rules can insert the material.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Financial Audit of Attawapiskat by Government of Canada

A recent audit by the Government of Canada into the finances of Attawapiskat First Nation is severety critical of Chief Theresa Spence Federal government audit severely critical of attawapiskat chief theresa spence--Syncmaster941bw (talk) 14:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

This should probably be worked in to the article in a Non-POV way. Might be worth while allowing a day or two for reliable sources to report on the developement before including in the article. 96.49.237.199 (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources e.g. Government of Canada and several mainstream news sites have already reported on this item--Syncmaster941bw (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The Star article didn't bother to indicate where they got the quote from that they used in the article title, nor is it clear in the source, so I removed it per WP:BLP. The other source doesn't say anything similar. --Ronz (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

the fact some editors continue to keep this issue out of the article is concerning. It's been gighly reported by almost every major news outlet in canada yet some editors still find reasons to keep it out. 108.172.114.141 (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I see Ronz and other, obviously biased parties are trying to keep information about Spence's mismanagement of the reserves finances off this page. Pretty sad, and a battle you will eventually lose, hopefully with your editor privledges for flagrant rule-breaking. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. 24.224.214.165 (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not a regular wikipedia editor, usually only cleaning up grammatical errors and the like, but I concur with the previous user that the editing by Ronz and others has been poor and one-sided. The audit in question noted that the vast majority of transactions authorized by Ms. Spence (~80%) had insufficient documentation, and the majority (~60%) no documentation whatsoever. It seems incredible to me that the mismanagement of $104 million is not considered serious enough to merit a section here. Yes, articles should be politically correct, but that is not a reason to skip over the documented failures in the activity which is the reason for the subject's notability and for this article's existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.170.148.125 (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Spence's youngest daughter joined strike?

I'm unable to verify any information in the paragraph. Did someone copy the wrong sources perhaps, or am I overlooking something? --Ronz (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Spence's youngest daughter, who is 13, had joined her in her hunger strike. This development was criticized by Chief Rose Laboucan of the Driftpile Cree Nation, who expressed concern that she did not want to see youth "follow in her footsteps".

The video clip is found at that URL. It was the main clip, above the text article (relevant discussion is at the 3:30 mark); it's the segment of this past Sunday's Question Period programme with Kevin Newman hosting. Unfortunately, CTV has the video clips set up to run as javascripts or something, no permanent URL, so I'm having a tough time figuring out how to cite the source properly. As the material is contentious, I;ve removed it til the source citing issue is figured out.OttawaAC (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Got the permanent URL and added the info back. Removed the daughter's age, I deduced it was her based on a separate print article but I have no independent proof to support my conclusion at the moment, and left her age out this time. Can't figure out where to add the 3:30 minute mark to the cite, but the URL and segment title are there.OttawaAC (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Try {{cite episode}} on for size. Template:Cite episode The Interior (Talk) 22:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

If we can't find more information on this, I think it should be removed per BLP, and the repeated NPOV, COATRACK, and NOTNEWS problems. It's brief mention of an otherwise non-notable person, with the criticism being merely a statement in an interview. --Ronz (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree or disagree, I'm really ambivalent about this one. I dislike putting focus on a child, but then, she's a minor and if true (as reported by a reputable national news source), Spence has permitted it and has also kept her daughter beside her for press conferences on the hunger strike/fast, therefore putting a spotlight on her daughter. I'd like to see more consensus on whether to keep or remove. Anyone have an opinion either way...? OttawaAC (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

only a sort of proto-opinion and I hope my logic can be followed. In a more fleshed out biography there would be a section on family life or similar. In that section it would seem normal to include bits about how her family played into major events in her life. So I can easily imagine a sentence that mentions her daughter joining in on the hunger strike with Spence. I think that would not fall in the category of news and fits in a biography. Its just that there is not a great place to put it as there is almost no personal non-news type of information. At the same time I do not feel that leaving it out causes the article to be lacking in any way. Jemmaca (talk) 04:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

References

Let's take care with the sensationalism

Per WP:W2W and WP:NPOV, let's take care how we present information from these newspaper articles, which tend to sensationalize the situations. I've removed "On January 7, 2013 several Canadian news outlets including the CBC and the Toronto Star revealed that a Financial Audit " and "On January 6, 2013, it was revealed by CTV news on the television program Question Period that" --Ronz (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't be vague, exactly which W2W are you referring to?--Syncmaster941bw (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Weasel words and editorializing. For example "it was revealed" subtly suggests that it is a truth that someone has tried to hide, while in fact it is simply an allegation. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The CTV source cited is a video linked at that URL, it was the wide video above the written article. The bit discussed starts at 3:30. Wasn't sure how to cite the video clip, I see how it might be confusing. Any suggestions about how to detail the cite for the references?OttawaAC (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Removed the info for now, til the cite issue gets sorted out. Checked the link, and the clip is still there, tho it's been bumped off to the side with some other video clips. I'm trying to figure out how to get an URL or permanent link, or some way to cite it. Is it enough to give the broadcast date of the TV program. OttawaAC (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

"For example "it was revealed" subtly suggests that it is a truth that someone has tried to hide" this is the crux of the matter, is it not? The language used is highly supportive of Spence and does not portray her in a critical light. While I certainly agree with the principle of a balanced article, it seems a higher standard is imposed on anything which might be considered detrimental to Spence as opposed to anything supportive. This does not seem to be in accordance with Wiki guidelines on NPOV, but since the article is 'protected' I cannot re-add the NPOV tag. 24.224.214.165 (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Primary sources

Please read and follow the policy Wikipedia:BLPPRIMARY about the limits on usage of primary sources in biographies of living persons. I am considering whether the article should be protected given the large amount of probelmatic edits being made without prior discussion or concensus to this BLP.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I would consider the Government of Canada as the primary source and the auditors, Deloite, as the secondary source or possibly vice versa, either way there are two sources--Syncmaster941bw (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

They're both primary sources. A secondary source would be, for example, a Maclean's feature on the issue. As this report was very recently issued, it's wise to wait for some solid secondary analysis before we include much about it. The Interior (Talk) 20:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they are both primary sources.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

So how about the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, would you consider the CBC to be a reliable second source?--Syncmaster941bw (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Provide a link to the piece you are thinking of and we'll discuss it in concrete terms.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no particular article in mind, I am simply asking if you believe Canada's national broadcaster to be a reliable source--Syncmaster941bw (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Reliability of sources is determined in relation to specific claims. They are certainly a secondary source in relation to Theresa Spence.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry - could you elaborate on why the CBC would not be considered a reliable secondary source in relation to Theresa Spence as vs. any other political figure? News articles from reputable, mainstream media sources do not seem to have attribution problems in a typical article for a politican or other notary. Why would there be special rules for Spence? 24.224.214.165 (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Seeking advice on how to propose Theresa Spence article for deletion

I am seeking advice on how to propose the Theresa Spence article for deletion, please advise the most expedient way to achieve this--Syncmaster941bw (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Use the process outlined at WP:AFD, be sure that you read and understand the part about what counts as valid reasons to seek an article deleted. I don't think it is a good or feasible idea to nominate the article as it seems that even you agree that the article is notable and that Spence is the topic of substantial coverage.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually please don't do it, she clearly meets our criteria for notability so any AfD would almost certainly be closed down as soon as it started. Dougweller (talk) 21:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, yes, I know. I can take a hint--Syncmaster941bw (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree that this should be deleted. As was discussed in the afd section above, jemmica provided able reasoning based on policy as to why it should be deleted. Instead ronz response ignored all that and instead argued any chief of a first nation is automatically notable. I wasnt aware that was a wiki policy. Further I'm not sure that the context of this chief is understood. She is essentially mayor of a town of approximatey 1600 people. Mayors of towns of 1600 are not automatically notable as far as I know. I'd suggest that the cntent that exists here be worked in to the idle no more and atiwapiskat pages with spence possibly getting a section in one or both of those articles. There just isnt enough biographical info available on her to create the page and the coatrack cntent belongs elsewhere on wikipedia. 108.172.114.141 (talk) 05:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that Ronz declared any FN Chief to be automatically notable, that is clearly ludicrous and probably explains his attitude in this matter. I would suggest that Spence is more notorious than notable, that being said even the worst criminals have a page on Wikipedia--Syncmaster941bw (talk) 12:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

You both need to read up on basic policy. I would start with WP:GNG and then go on to WP:BLP and WP:NPOV.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Manus,I agree with all the current W'pedia policies, my beef is more to do with the interpretation of those policies by some administrators. To state that an FN Chief is automatically notable is ludicrous. I agree that Spence is now notable, she certainly was not notable when first elected as Chief. Anyway as I said I do agree with all of the W'pedia policies and understand why they exist. Thanks for your guidance.-Syncmaster941bw (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It is of course incorrect to suggest that any person can be apriori notable in the absence of coverage in sources. My comment was also directed at your statement about "notoriety" as something distinct from "notability" comparing Spence with "the worst criminals". The BLP policy also covers talkpages. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Well then you have misinterpreted my comments. The intention is to let 108.172.114.141 know that he/she shouldn't be surprised that Spence has a page on W'pedia because even the worst criminals have a page. I did not compare Spence to a criminal--Syncmaster941bw (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

after reading GNG she, herself, does not pass GNG. This is a acoatrack no question. Very little of the article is about spence herself. As well, very little of the coverage is about spence as opposed to her protest. As mentioned before, the content should be worked n to other articles. 108.172.114.141 (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Under the significant coverage rule she is notable. I agree that her page is a coatrack--Syncmaster941bw (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear here I was not ever arguing she was not notable. At the time of my larger comments above the page had been nominated for deletion and I felt that the page as it was then was failing to meet the stringent requirements for a biography of a living person. My comments were about the state of the article at that time. Someone decided that the AfD tag should be removed and that was enough for me to move on to looking at how it might be improved. And since that time several people have done a lot of work to clean it up. I hope it can be improved more and I think it would be a real loss if the page were removed, and an even bigger loss if it needed to be removed. Jemmaca (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I have a feeling that as events unfold over the coming weeks Spence will garner a lot of negative press. I expect her supporters to then lobby for deletion of her page from W'pedia, of course as Spence is notable deletion will not be permitted --Syncmaster941bw (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Any additional coverage will increase notability regardless of whether it is considered positive or negative.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Now, let's try to work those themes, both positive and negative, into the article. Showing only one side of the story is not how this should work. I see a much larger body of text supportive of Spence than critical, despite the enormous amounts of articles being published that contradict Spence or more, indict her for financial malfeasance.24.224.214.165 (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

An aside on misrepresenting others

Just to note, "Instead ronz response ignored all that and instead argued any chief of a first nation is automatically notable" is a total fabrication based upon nothing but one editor's imagination as far as I can tell. Misrepresenting other editors' viewpoints is a serious policy violation per WP:TALKNO. Please refrain from commenting on others per WP:FOC and follow WP:TALK. --Ronz (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC) I apologize Ronz. I incorrectly attributed this claim to you when in fact it was another user who above stated: "Individual easily passes notability criteria. Current chief of a First nations community alone would do it. I mean, we have articles on obscure state legislators and even fringe candidates. This person clearly is a political figure of sufficient notability. Comments added about opponents view. So, as a previously uninvolved editor, I have to say that this is a dead issue. Montanabw(talk) 20:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)" 108.172.113.23 (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the explanation and apology. --Ronz (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Semiprotected

I've semiprotected the article due to the constant influx of unsourced BLP problems.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for protecting the article, luckily I managed to get my content posted before you protected it. Thanks once again--Syncmaster941bw (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It is only semiprotected, registered autoconfirmed users like you can still edit it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks--Syncmaster941bw (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Bill C-45 commentary

I believe this should be worked in to provide balance to the commentary:

"Bill C-45 includes changes to the Indian Act that make it easier for band councils to lease land. Some protesters have claimed the bill goes further and makes it easier for reserve land to be sold outright. The AFN’s legal adviser, Kathleen Lickers, has contradicted those claims, however, telling senators in November that while the government’s process is flawed, the changes are an “improvement.”"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/untangling-the-web-of-issues-around-idlenomore-and-attawapiskat/article7012863/ 108.172.113.23 (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The link provided doesnt verify the material.

To avoid further coatracking, please explain with a source how this relates to Spence. --Ronz (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Cut and paste from the globe article (click on 2012 Omnibus Budget Bills tab):

2012 omnibus budget bills

Started: Bill C-38 was introduced in April, 2012, and Bill C-45 was introduced in October.

The issue: From the government’s perspective, its two 2012 budget bills were all about cutting red tape to speed up economic development – particularly when it comes to natural resources and natural-gas pipelines. To many first nations, the changes are viewed as an infringement on treaty rights and environmental protection. Also, Bill C-45 includes changes to the Indian Act that make it easier for band councils to lease land. Some protesters have claimed the bill goes further and makes it easier for reserve land to be sold outright. The AFN’s legal adviser, Kathleen Lickers, has contradicted those claims, however, telling senators in November that while the government’s process is flawed, the changes are an “improvement.”

It has to do with the commentary around C-45. I could be had for not including any of it but currently it details the oppositions claims against Bill C-45 so if any is to be included in a non-POV way both sides need to be represented 108.172.113.23 (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Connected to: Treaty rights, #Idle No More

And reading the headline to the story would have explained its relation to Spence....The entire globe article is about the connection between these issues (hence the title of the Globe's article...)108.172.113.23 (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is Vickers actual testimony to the Senate panel in which she (allow me to summerize) voice's frustration that the process to draft the amendments wasnt longer and more open for FN discussion/consultation but overal she agrees that the amendments are "largely positive" http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Mode=1&DocId=5841297&Language=E#Int-7782697 108.172.113.23 (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying.

It would just be adding to the coatracking here, being so very far from the topic of Spence herself. --Ronz (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

i could agree with that, but then should we not remove the comemtary crtical of C-45? Otherwise we end up with POV issues108.172.113.23 (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I propose we make the following change:

Current: "Opponents of the bill argue that it would remove many of the rights of the First Nations', including rights to self-governance and control of their landbase.[14] "Bill C-45 includes changes to the Canadian Indian Act regarding how Reserve lands are managed, making them easier to develop and be taken away from the First Nation people; the bill also removes thousands of lakes and streams from the list of federally protected bodies of water."[15]Proponents argue that the bill would demand more accountability from highly paid chiefs and their support staff, and reduce corruption and nepotism. [16]"

Updated: "Opponents of the bill argue that it would remove many of the rights of the First Nations', including rights to self-governance and control of their landbase.[14] Proponents argue that the bill would demand more accountability from highly paid chiefs and their support staff, and reduce corruption and nepotism. [16]"

This gives euqal billing to both sides. If the anti-C-45 comments are retained then we need to balance it with equal amounts of pro C-45 comments.108.172.113.23 (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• This article is not about the C-45 bill but about a person who happens to have an opinion about the bill, the article should objectively explain the subjects opinion, not the entire debate.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

If that's the case the current info and ref should be removed (along with much of the articles content that comes from thrid parties as opposed to Spence and her team) and it should be re-written only include direct quotes from Spence and her team. Currently there is quite a bit of this commentary that comes from third parties, but it is limited to only those which are on the same side of the debate as Spence. The quote I've suggested removing is not actually from Spence but rather Chris Brown, a staff writer for commondreams.com and Eriel Deranger the Communication Coordinator for the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation (you can confirm this by reading the ref, Spence is not directly quote anywhere in the article). If quotes from third parties that support Spence are included so should thosee from sources which may be critical of her. It has to go both ways or no way. In current form it's pushing a pro-Spence POV108.172.113.23 (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, notable ceritiques of Spence and her actions should be included. Not necessarily critiques of C-45 which is a different thing.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

So I think we agree, third party interpretations (for or against) Bill C-45 should NOT be included in this article. Does that sound right to you?108.172.113.23 (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

If we are in agreement then I believe this entire chunck should be removed: "Opponents of the bill argue that it would remove many of the rights of the First Nations', including rights to self-governance and control of their landbase.[14] "Bill C-45 includes changes to the Canadian Indian Act regarding how Reserve lands are managed, making them easier to develop and be taken away from the First Nation people; the bill also removes thousands of lakes and streams from the list of federally protected bodies of water."[15]Proponents argue that the bill would demand more accountability from highly paid chiefs and their support staff, and reduce corruption and nepotism. [16" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.172.113.23 (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

If notable sources describe Spence's opinion of the C-45 then yes they should be included in the article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The content I've suggested to be removed does not include Spences opinion, but simply those of Eriel Deranger and Chris Brown. It would be OR and/or SYNTH to try and project those two third parties comments as Spence's opnion. I'm trying to work with you (and other editors) but it's feeling very much like there is an insistance to only retain pro-Spence content and to keep out any that might be critical of her. Please specify why you fell (if in fact you do) that the info I;e suggested to be removed should stay. Thanks. 108.172.113.23 (talk) 23:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

If the material is not about Spence it should be removed. There is an inherent bias in wikipedia's BLP policy which means that we have to be extremely cautious in adding controversial material in biographies of living persons. I do not have any specific viewpoint on Spence or Canadian politics - but I do believe in strictly enforcing our BLP policy because wikipedia is not supposed to be a vehicle for damaging people's reputations (or for improving it for that matter, but this is less problematic from an ethical standpoint).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely with Maunus that this is not the article to debate c-45. a brief explanation of why Spence feels it is worth hunger striking over is reasonable. That being said I really dislike the two sentences below:

(1) "Bill C-45 includes changes to the Canadian Indian Act regarding how Reserve lands are managed, making them easier to develop and be taken away from the First Nation people; the bill also removes thousands of lakes and streams from the list of federally protected bodies of water."[15]

(2) Proponents argue that the bill would demand more accountability from highly paid chiefs and their support staff, and reduce corruption and nepotism. [16]

I don't like 2 as it is not about the subject of the article. Plus the phrase "highly paid chiefs" reads as "spence is over-paid" which is not neutral nor accepted fact. I also am not sure the reference says that though I'm sure the Sun News network feels that way. (Is this the one that the comment is in the video?)

Similarly I think sentence 1 is very biased (and comes from a non-neutral source.) "easier to .. be taken away from .." makes it sound like there is a plot to remove reserve lands. Compare that sentence to the one in the earlier source http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/12/26/theresa-spence-justin-trudeau/

"Bill C-45, the Conservative government’s omnibus budget bill which passed earlier this month, contains changes to the Navigable Waters Act, including waterways in First Nations territory. It also makes it easier to sell reserve land to non-natives."

I propose (2) be deleted and (1) be reworked by a better writer than me. Jemmaca (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I like where this is going, but let's be careful. First, there's a fundamental misunderstanding of NPOV when editors suggest different sides of an issue should be presented equally. Second, some background and context is absolutely essential to the article: it should not be just quotes and opinions of Spence - Such suggestions demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is and is not. --Ronz (talk) 03:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I tend to disagree that there is room for third party commentary beyond Spence (and her teams) statements and opinions have been. How would we decide what third aprty info should be included without engaging in OR? My frustration continues as there seems to be a significant amount of discussion on the issues with the article but yet little has changed. Trying desperately to continue to assume good faith but it's becoming difficult to do so when the content is diverging more and more from what reliable sources are reporting (as opposed to content which simply supports and argues on behalf of Spence) 108.172.113.23 (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

surprise, surprise, another day passes with no changes and no discussion on the POV pushing in this article. 108.172.113.23 (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me there is less POV-pushing going on when you are not here...·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

That would only be because the little cabal of editors which obviously is in support of Spence's actions then has free reign. It was Ronz, yourself, and a few others who took this article into heavily POV-territory. You could do the decent thing and let others edit the article, or you can continue to obfuscate and revert obviously well-sourced edits. 24.224.214.165 (talk) 16:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

You are more than free to edit the article. All you have to do is register. GregJackP Boomer! 16:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstand me with your trite reply. I can edit the article, then have it reverted by the cabal. I have repeatedly asked for previously uninvolved editors to review the article and the POV-pushing that has been going on. I see no purpose in continuing to attempt to make valid edits to the article only to see those edits reverted - and worse, perhaps a block threat to go with it. Its utterly ridiculous and contrary to the spirit of wikipedia. You talk page makes it clear you are an aboriginal activist. In this light, it becomes clear why you are happy with the article as it is. This is why I have asked for previously unengaged editors to review the article, because of POV-pushing by a group of editors with similar political views.24.224.214.165 (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Income

I removed the following new addition added to the "Response" section:

Spence has also been criticized for the amount of her annual salary of half of $250,000 a year, the other half of which is allocated to her common-law partner. Spence's common-law partner responded to criticism stating that he thinks that the salary, awarded to the leader of a small, poverty-stricken reserve of 1,929 residents and which is comparable to that of the Prime Minister of Canada, is "adequate for the job that is being done.” [[17]]

Unless I'm missing something the source only says this on the matter:

Kennedy defended his and Spence’s reported combined household income of about $250,000 a year, saying: “I think it’s adequate for the job that is being done.”

I don't know why this information belongs in "Response" and we'll need to rewrite the information or find sources that better verify it. --Ronz (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree; the source doesn't seem to criticize or otherwise mention that there have been criticisms of her salary. The source does not say he was responding to criticism, although the use of the word "defended" could be seen as an implication of such criticism. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I see the implication - borderline WP:SYN. Bringing up the population and comparing the income to the Prime Minister is WP:SYN to further a viewpoint not expressed in the sources. As pointed out in the previous discussions, we need to avoid such WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:COAT, and WP:BLP violations. --Ronz (talk) 02:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The material was restored, and I've re-removed it. I read the source, and agree that it does not support the added text without attempting to apply a liberal amount of original research to augment the statements in the source. I have no problem with the addition if another source can be found that directly supports the text - but the current ref fails to accomplish that. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Full protection?

I'm very uncomfortable seeing established editors misrepresenting sources now. Should we full protect the article? --Ronz (talk) 04:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I personally don't think that full protection is necessary at this point. I honestly think that we as a community have made great strides at restoring this article's neutrality and full protection would be a major halt to that progress. However, if POV-pushing like we once saw here rears its ugly head again, I fear that it may be necessary. We'll see. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 01:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

No Image Yet?

This lady has made herself famous. Why has nobody placed a copyrighted imageof her near the top of the article to enhance it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.38.33.90 (talk) 02:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

A copyrighted image would be inappropriate, unless properly licensed. See MOS:IMAGES and WP:IUP. --Ronz (talk) 04:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Separate article for "Theresa Spence protest"?

IMO there's a justification for creating an article to contain info focussing on her protest. It's really the protest that is notable at this point, and the attention it brought to Idle No More, not so much Spence's life story. This biography has turned into a huge coatrack due to ongoing developments, which I believe are notable enough to merit a standalone article (heavy media coverage, politicians' involvement, spread of INM protests).

Is there a consensus to create an article for Theresa Spence's protest? It could then be expanded to cover some of the issues raised and discussed above; controversies over "hunger strike" versus "liquid diet", Attawapiskat, political matters surrounding her protest could be covered in more detail, and other information related to the impact of her protest. I would just leave it to others to debate whether the BLP stays or gets deleted. BTW, I would title the new article "Theresa Spence protest" (it could contain a (sub)section to discuss the "hunger strike"/"fast"/"liquid diet" definition controversy). Opinions? OttawaAC (talk) 08:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how it would improve anything. While she's notable for more than the protest, there's little written about her unrelated to the protest and nothing written about her with any depth. I simply don't think we have the sources for expansion, taking into account WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. --Ronz (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that this BLP be expanded; if anything, I think it could be deleted, or renamed "Theresa Spence protest" (the latter option is my preference). What you've said about lack of biographical info outside of the hunger strike would seem to support my suggestion. This BLP truly is a coatrack at this point. OttawaAC (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I support the rename as the article in its current form is simply a coatrack for the INM and protest info. There is such a lack of info on what would be considered legitimate BLP content that the rename seems to be the best solution. 108.172.113.23 (talk) 21:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

An article on Theresa Spence should remain. She's notable, we've plenty of sources demonstrating how she's notable.

I don't see any quality sources available for expansion for this article, nor for one on her protest. Given it's a current event getting very little coverage outside Canada, I don't think it's a good idea. --Ronz (talk) 22:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

regurtitating your non-wiki policy based objection isnt helpfull. You faill to address the blatant coatrack issues with this article and substitute your own personal view that a. She is notable and b. that there is sufficient details available (that are blp appropriate) to form and article. Address these issue before dismissing the change. 108.172.113.23 (talk) 00:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I stand with the consensus that she is notable. If there's anything in the article not blp appropriate, it should be removed. --Ronz (talk) 02:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Another option would be to stub this page down, and create Attawapiskat housing crisis, which would better suit a lot of this content, and some of the extended content in the "Housing and infrastructure" section at Attawapiskat First Nation. The Interior (Talk) 01:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Analysis of article

Quite a bit is not appropropriate for a BLP. Here is my estimation: (The list below is from 108.172.113.23. I've bulleted the list so others can comment in context. --Ronz (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC))

("Attawapiskat housing and infrastructure crisis" section:)

• "As chief of Attawapiskat, Spence oversees a $31.2 million annual operating budget.[5][6] According to the most recent census, Attawapiskat has 1,549 people living on reserve.[5]" - Undue for a BLP page

• "The Attawapiskat reserve has been the subject of several state of emergency announcements by Spence in recent years, due to the reserve's poor housing conditions. The announcements have received national media coverage. On October 28, 2011, Spence called a state of emergency for the third time in three years. On December 30, 2012, a spokesperson for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs stated that by the end of 2012-13, the federal government will have spent $131 million on the Attawapiskat reserve since 2006, including the construction of 60 new and renovated houses and a new school.[7]" - coatrack info. Inserting Spence's name in to what is clearly discussion of the housing crisis topic, not Spence is clear coatracking

• "Controversy has grown around the question of how the money received from the federal government is spent by the reserve's own government. Detailed financial records have not been made public to reserve residents or to the media; some residents of the reserve refused to discuss the matter with media, saying that they feared repercussions.[8]" - more coatracking. Spence isn't even mentioned here.

• "The De Beers company, which owns a diamond mine nearby and employs around 60 residents of the reserve full-time, has donated trailers for housing to the reserve in the past. The Attawapiskat reserve's government receives a payment from De Beers, but Spence has declined to say how much or how it is spent.[8]" Coatrack. Nothing to do with Spence's biography. We dont include ever comment anyone has ever made to the media in their BLP.

  This is worth examining closer. Unless there's some sourced context tying this directly to Spence, I don't see why it belongs. --Ronz (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Grand Chief Stan Louttit has criticized media coverage of the Attawapiskat reserve finances for misconstruing the true cost of living in remote locations such as Attawapiskat, which is significantly higher than more populated areas in southern regions of Canada. The Attawapiskat band council agreed to a comprehensive audit, the results of which are pending review by the Aboriginal Affairs Department and Health Canada.[9] Attawapiskat had been placed under third party management by the federal government following the state of emergency declared by Spence in 2011, however, this arrangement was overturned by a court ruling.[10]" - has no biographical value. More coatracking to discuss housing crisis and gov funding
  • That's why she became so highhly notable though....the housing and education crisis; and as below the third-party manager thing was not just overturned, but criticized by auditors as well as politicians of being targeted...."has no biographical value" is debatable, because notability is the events and issues which define the public role of a person..Skookum1 (talk) 09:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• "A 2012 financial audit commissioned by the Government of Canada has found little or no documentation to account for millions of dollars spent by the Attawapiskat Band Council.[11][12]" - this is about the band in general with that is a stretch to be included on spences page. Under the BLP principals I;d be inclined to keep it out
  • It should be kept out, unless material critical of the government's own inadequacy and negligence is put in, including the profound waste of money of the third-party manager, and the targeting of this audit specifically to undermine Ms Spence....Skookum1 (talk) 09:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• "The results of a Deloitte audit on the state of Attawapiskat were released, which showed that millions were unaccounted for among the $104 million that the reserve received in federal funding from 2005 to 2011. Spence responded by accusing Canada of acting in bad faith." undue for a BLP unless there is a specific investigation in to Spence reported in realiable sources.
  • And Deloitte's political connections are also an issue....there is a targeted investigation that was launched against her durng the hunger strike; I'm not sure the results are in; but somewhere out there she and the band were cleared and the third-party manager appointment was harshly criticized, I think by the AUditor-GEneral.

• "Other First Nations leaders, however, were critical of Spence’s fiscal mismanagement as indefensible and undermining reserves that followed proper bookkeeping.[13][14]" - this could be included as it relates directly to spence but its a fairly significant claim and it would need to be attributed directly to those leaders rather than the current generic "other first nation leaders" and have numerous reliable sources before being retained.
  • "Other Canadians, however, were critical of Harper's fiscal mismanagement as indefensible and didn't follow proper bookkeeping".....here the problem is that this inclusion has the defamatory intent that "until proven in a court of law" (or by an audit) should not be allowed to stand.Skookum1 (talk) 09:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• "Spence's combined salary and travel expenses amount to more than $71,000. [15]" - undue. we dont list incomes of various other individual's with BLP pages. Unless this topic is the focus of stand alone coverage in multiple reliable sources it should also go.

  I agree that this should be removed. --Ronz (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Absolutely removed, yes.Skookum1 (talk) 09:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

("Idle No More and hunger strike" section:)

• "On 11 December 2012 Spence declared a hunger strike. Her hunger strike consists of a liquid diet of sips of lemon water, medicinal teas, and fish broth—providing basic nutrients, and exceeding a hunger strike of water only. It is estimated that she is intaking between 200 and 400 calories each day.[16][17][18]" - keep

• "According to the 1991 Declaration on Hunger Strikers (Declaration of Malta), hunger strikes and total fasts include the consumption of liquids[19] and this is reflected in an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association on the treatment of hunger strikers.[20]" remove, if people want to research what a hunger strike is we've linked to the page
  • Well, given teh energy and hype out there by the anti-Spence defamation machine, I agree that "hunger strike" shouldn't be qualified or need to be justified; so "keep".Skookum1 (talk) 09:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• "Her protest is intended to focus public attention on First Nations issues, support the Idle No More indigenous rights movement, and highlight concerns about Bill C-45.[16]" - keep

• "Further, she stated her action "won't end until Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Gov. Gen. David Johnston agree to sit down and talk about Canada's treaty relationship with First Nations leadership."[16] - keep

• "From a tipi on Victoria Island, near Parliament Hill in Ottawa, she issued a call for First Nation traditional women healers and other women, including Laureen Harper, the wife of the Prime Minister, to come and join her "to pray for Canada."[21]" remove, undue. didnt receive significant coverage in reliable sources (I know there are a few, but this wasnt a major story)
  • considering other material you want in here, how is this any less; "significant coverage" is a subjective term.Skookum1 (talk) 09:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• "Her protest attracted worldwide attention to the Idle No More movement and she became a unifying symbol to some Idle No More supporters.[22][23]" this one has bugged me for a whole. Only pro-spence, pro-INM pseudo news sites are making the "international" claim. If could be stated that she has become widely and publicly connected to INM but even the IDM founders have attempted to distance themselves from spence.
  • "only pseudo-news sites" is a giveaway of the agenda of this IP poster, quite clearly; as if the mainstream media were not psuedo-news sites; and who defines what's "pseudo-news", given the obviously slanted tone of the major media (SunMedia in particular) About the international side of this, I see posts every day on FB internationally about this, and the list on the Idle No More page is only partial. I gather PressTV and Al-Jazeera and RT are considered by this IP poster to be "pseudo-news sites".......and within CAnada, no doubt rabble.ca and other alternative news sources are also "psuedo-news"??Skookum1 (talk) 09:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• "Some in Attawapiskat also supported Spence.[24]" Undue. To focused on the INM cause
  • "Some" is a weasel word, there's more copy on this out there and while this is about her hunger strike, that she has the support of her community before INM or her hunger strike is a fact. Keep and expand Skookum1 (talk) 09:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• "A bank account for accepting direct donations was set up for Spence, which Spence's spokespersons indicated would be under the sole financial control of Spence's spouse, Clayton Kennedy, rather than the Attawapiskat band council. A columnist with Canadian news weekly magazine Maclean's questioned the propriety of the arrangement, as well as questioning who was authorized to speak publicly on behalf of Spence.[25]" this one needs more coverage and investigation. Its trying to allude to potential fraud on the part of Spence and Kennedy but there hasnt been enough reporting or investigation to include this in a BLP. Remarkable claims need remarkable sources...
  • Indeed this is very BLP, and sounds a lot like inflammatory press, which has been common throughout; either delete or say "the government and it supporters have said...." but should be counterbalanced by other reports critical of the defamation campaign.Skookum1 (talk) 09:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• "Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development John Duncan sent a letter to Spence on December 25, 2012, expressing concern for her health and urging her to end her protest.[26] Spence subsequently called for a day of protests in support of her cause to take place on December 30, 2012, bringing peaceful demonstrations in Toronto, Calgary, Vancouver, and other locations, while a VIA train was detained by demonstrators near Belleville, Ontario." remove last bit on the VIA train and otherwise keep

• "Spence was visited by 21 senators and members of parliament representing opposition parties.[7]" keep

• "Former Prime Minister Paul Martin met with Spence on January 5, 2013, calling her "an inspiration".[27]" - remove or provide expanded coverage of what Martin said. One selectively lifted quote that does not accurately reflect the entirety of Martin's comments post-meeting is pushing a POV

• "Amnesty International issued a statement in her support and urged the Prime Minister to meet with Spence.[28]" keep but provide a direct quote from Amnesty International as opposed to an editors summary of their statement.

• "Shawn Atleo, national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, has met with Spence repeatedly and has tried to convince her to end her hunger strike, without success. On January 1, 2013, Atleo invited the Prime Minister to a January 24 meeting with First Nations leaders, but this date was rejected by Spence who said her health condition required a meeting within 72 hours.[29] Spence's spokesperson stated that the hunger strike would not stop and could continue after January 11.[30]" keep

• "On January 4, 2013, the Office of the Prime Minister announced that a meeting would take place on January 11, 2013, between Harper and Duncan and a delegation of First Nation leaders, coordinated by the Assembly of First Nations, to follow up on issues discussed during the Crown-First Nations gathering that took place on on January 24, 2012.[31] A spokesperson for Spence initially stated that she would attend the meeting, but Spence later clarified her position and rejected the invitation, as Governor General David Johnston had declined to attend, while Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty was unavailable.[13]" keep

I welcome comments and feedback to my proposed changes but please base your comments in wiki policy exclusively. Lets keep the POV out of it. Thanks 108.172.113.23 (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see how these relate to WP:BLP. The picking and choosing seems arbitrary.

Probably best to identify the example you find the most problematic and provide details including quotes from the relevant policies. --Ronz (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

my suggestions are in no way arbitrary. Each one specifically explains which wiki polisy that may be an issue (blp, undue, coatrack, etc.) please reply to each (or any) specifically that you may disagree with and in what wiki policy you are basing your position on. 108.172.113.23 (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

if you go theough it I think you will find mu suggestions are very balanced and non-pov. I've suggested removing much of the pro and anti spence material and leaving that which are mostly neutral facts as any BLP should be constructed. 108.172.113.23 (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

If further explanations are not forthcoming, I don't reason to act on any of this. I'll look in more detail and comment directly. --Ronz (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

as a BLP article, Ronz, it comes off as highly POV because of the incriminatory sequence of news items stacked up and delve into imputations and such; and sounds an awful lot like a hostile post about Ms Spence, and somehow there's no mention that the audits did clear her and the band, and that the moneys provided by the feds are about 1/3 or less what a municipality gets, same with per-child education funding, tha'ts all missing. As are the mounting questions about whether or not any of the DeBeers money actually got to the band (like all that money for Haiti that was announced and still isn't paid out). True enough that a lot of what's here might better belong in the Attawapiskat article as it has to do with band finances, instead of being presented here to undermine Chief Spence's reputation; and comes off like a data-rant. I"m surprised the French manicure wasn't mentioned, given the mention of her annual expenses; I haven't looked but is there such a declaration of expenses on the Stephen Harper article, for a relevant comparison? There are passages above I'll comment on directly, but right now this is a data avalanche which, to me, comes off as POV and more than a bit defamatory.Skookum1 (talk) 09:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Very good points all. Now that the din has subsided, maybe we can work on making this a better article rather than just working to hold off all the problematic editing. --Ronz (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

to summerize skookum's suggestions: all info even mildly critical of spence should be removed and more supportive info add even if that means moving to non reliable fringe sources. Who here has the agenda skook? 108.172.115.8 (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Estimation of fasting calories

The current version is ambiguous and not accurate. The current version incorrectly claims Spence IS consuming 200-400 calories a day and doesnt suggest who came up with that figure. My suggested edit correctly attributes this ESTIMATION to its source. Please state why this was rejected. 108.172.113.23 (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I changed "believed" to "estimated." Frankly, I don't know why the estimate is worth mention at all. --Ronz (talk) 02:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I added it a few days ago. I was perusing the sources to ensure that they match the attached statements, and came across the info. I added it because it seems to be the most-neutral description of her fast at this time. The change from "believed" to "estimated" is certainly better; thank you for making it. As for the IP's comment, it at no point claimed 200-400 calories as a fact, originally being prefaced with "It is believed that..." and now "It is estimated that..." Neither preface indicates that this is a certainty, but just an estimation. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Addition of opinions

I don't see why such opinions are due any weight, are encyclopedic in any manner, or begin to meet the requirements of WP:BLP. Recent, academic analysis and history are what we need here, rather than digging up cheap political jabs. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Removal of hunger strike qualifications

Reading through the talk history it's quite apparent an edit war took place going back and forth on whether to call Spence's protest a hunger strike. With the benefit of a decade of hindsight we know for certain it was. The section regarding Declaration of Malta and the American Medical Association's guidelines agreeing it is seems unncessary now. It disrupts the reading and I think it should be removed. It seems like an artifact of that edit war to ensure no one removes changes it from hunger-strike. Mars3 (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)